Poland's Navy said Thursday that it has identified a sunken shipwreck in the Baltic Sea as almost certainly being Nazi Germany's only aircraft carrier, the Graf Zeppelin.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Now if they can only convert it into a spaceship, we'll be all set.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
Hmm - would be nice if the Russians could dig up what the Soviets did with it. Lost at sea? Sunk as target? Broken up for scrap, in which case this can't be it?
Some record was made, it was a valuable item in 1947 even if it wasn't battle worthy. As I understand it there is considerable doubt it could have ever been a very effective carrier even if the rest of the German fleet could have been able to support one.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
As far as a viable weapon, the GZ wouldn't have been much. The Kriegsmarine had no experience with carrier operations and no real aircraft that were carrier worthy. Her most probable compliment would have been FW190's and Stukas. While the FW's were good aircraft the JU-87 was outdated by 1941.
Posted by Zefram (Member # 1568) on :
quote:While the FW's were good aircraft the JU-87 was outdated by 1941.
The Stuka was definitely helpless against Spitfires or Hurricanes. But wouldn't a sea-based Stuka have faced a little less opposition than the land-based ones, at least for a little while? I'm not too familiar with WWII era British carrier-based aircraft.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I read somewhere that Graf Zeppelin was in fact target-sunk. Maybe it was Wikipedia.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Shik is infact right, it was target sunk on August 16th, 1947 after they tried repairing her.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
The only carrier to ever be sunk by the Soviets?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: As far as a viable weapon, the GZ wouldn't have been much. The Kriegsmarine had no experience with carrier operations and no real aircraft that were carrier worthy.
Good thing too- if they were able to use it as a re-supply/re-fueling station for air raids, it would have been bad news indeed.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Toad, since they fought mainly a ground war against the German's that is a very high number.
Jason, the East Coast cities could have been very Londonesque indded.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
Sure - but I meant that they never sunk anybody else's either. Or even one their own as a target since they didn't have any out of service (that I know of) while they were still the "Soviets".
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
With the Soviets, 60% of their navy was "out of service" at any given time.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
quote:I'm not too familiar with WWII era British carrier-based aircraft.
There's a reason for that...
Apart from the ancient Fairey Swordfish biplane, most British naval aviation was a joke. I mean, the Swordfish was a joke, too, but it sunk the Bismarck and half the Italian navy, won the Battle of the Atlantic, and would not doubt still be fighting if it weren't for workplace health issues about the open cockpits.
British naval aviation victories not attributed to Swordfish generally went to American designs on extended loan. The RAF hated naval aviation even more than the USMC hates the USAF hates the USN hates the US Army, and the stuff developed for the carriers was sub-substandard. You might search for Fairey's Albacore, Barracuda, Fulmar or Seafox, or the Blackburn Skua... Okay, the latter might have been a good plane, but for a shorter time than the Stuka was.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
*hee hee* I love interservice rivalries. Surface fleet versus submariners. Hell, I know a lot of Coasties, and you know what the definition of Coast Guard is, yes? "The hard nucleus around which the Navy forms in time of war." Or how my friends in several different branches define "Marines": "Men Armed Riding In Navy's Excess Surplus".
Then there's the old joke... A Navy Seaman and a Marine Rifleman [insert services of your choice here] are standing side-by-side at the urinals. The Seaman finishes first and goes to leave. The Marine calls after him "Hey! In the Marine Corps, they teach us to wash our hands after taking a piss!" To which the Navy man replies "In the Navy, they teach us not to piss on our hands."
--Jonah
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
My great-uncle was a naval aviator, a Swordfish pilot. One day he went to recce a new AA battery on the mainland coast. His navigator survived. . .
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Fairey Albacore"? Surely the worst name for a war machine ever.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Supposedly the users knew her as the Applecore.
(There's a special moment in RN aviation infamy where a bunch of Albacores failed to sink the Tirpiz because they were too slow to keep up with her... The battleship pushed about 30 knots against the wind, while the Albacores could barely made headway. I rather doubt the planes of the Graf Zeppelin could have done worse. Then again, they would have been under the direct control of G�ring...)
We Finns have fond memories of the discards of other navies' aviation arsenals. We were saved by Brewster Buffaloes the USN didn't want, had some Anson bombers the RN didn't want, and were about to receive a number of the Blackburn Skua's uglier sister Roc as well. After scraping the bottom of the barrel all on our own, we then became recipients of Hitler's poorest-quality European loot for the latter half of the war. Having one plane of each type is not quite the ideal way to build an air force...
OTOH, it was fun to pick up a book on WWII aviation history and see basically every entry for a Soviet plane decorated with a photo of an example captured by the Finns and painted with blue swastikas. Sometimes those were the only photos available of a particular type.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
I know the Brits used the Grumman F4F under the name "Martlet" and I believe they also used the Corsair before it received qualification aboard U.S. carriers. IIRC there was a Sea-Hurricane and a Sea-Fury but I am not up on when they entered service.
It's really amazing how completely wasted the German surface navy was. Imagine if they had assembled ONE fleet of:
and around 35-40 destroyers. This would have been quite an assembly for the British to deal with. Early on IIRC the only ships that could come close to matching firepower with the battlewagons were the Rodney and the Nelson, the KGV class having only 14" guns.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Well, "wasted" is the right word. Basically everything that floated was used on the Norwegian expedition - and basically everything was either sunk or damaged on that expedition, too.
Both the "battlecruisers" (actually, the exact opposite of battlecruiser - these had heavy armor but light guns) and all the cruisers taking part were damaged, and two cruisers sunk. Several support vessels were lost as well. Virtually the entire destroyer force went to the bottom at Narvik.
I won't blame Raeder or even Hitler a bit for their timidity in using the Kriegsmarine after that, or for not finishing any new surface ships. In fact, that was standard Nazi operating procedure in the war: they would gamble everything, and lose everything, even if each of their respective early conquest campaigns did succeed in reaching its goals.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
WizArtist -
The trick for such a fleet would have been finding an objective for it.
Can't invade GB without lots of transports and total air control.
That fleet is overkill for an anti-convoy mission.
The Royal Navy is unlikely to give you a massive fleet vs. fleet battle that they can't win just for the heck of it. If you spend any time within land based air strike range you're toast.
Perhaps they could have invaded Iceland if the ships were available early enough in the war. Logistics would have been hell though.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
They could have been used at the straight of Gibraltar (with land based air support) to choke off the ability of the RN from running the Med. Had they actually COORDINATED with the Italian fleet, they could have made North African campaigns far more hellish than they were. As for Narvik, It is suicidal to run large capital ships into narrow accessways. Happened to Nishimura & Shima too.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
This is all a German plot! It's about time unified Germany became a global threat again- fuck this "war on terorism" pussy shit- I want a real World war!
I'm thinking the current Germany could still roll right over France's ass to get the ball roilling.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Always the Germans with you people. How about a changeup? Perhaps some nice Norwegian hegemony?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Too tough to throw together in time. Besides, Germany is a classic, China just never happened, and Russia's been done to death.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I'm old-school at heart. Persia FTW.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Let the Second Great Incan Empire begin!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: I'm old-school at heart. Persia FTW.
I'm down with that. Where will we find our Alexander to crush them though? Certainly not among the Greeks.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Well...there is always....Damien.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Phht. A fairy tale.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: They could have been used at the straight of Gibraltar (with land based air support) to choke off the ability of the RN from running the Med. Had they actually COORDINATED with the Italian fleet, they could have made North African campaigns far more hellish than they were. As for Narvik, It is suicidal to run large capital ships into narrow accessways. Happened to Nishimura & Shima too.
ooooh - Good one. If they could resupply via Italy the logistics would be fairly secure too. Leaves the north Atlantic open except for U-boats, but the surface fleet wasn't good for much there anyhow.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Among the Geeks Jason, among the Geeks.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So...we rally around who? Omega for the Christian Conservative angle? Liam for the...er...y'know, where the fuck is Liam anyway?
I say we have MaGic as our standard-bearer (she's photogenic and can dance) whilst we all do the dirty jobs that make an Empire function.
like greasing the wheeels of bureacracy with the blood of all who oppose us.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
We orchestrate a complex multilateral strike with the many operatives we have stationed around the globe. Timo, Masao, Bernd, Liam, Omega, Jason, Balaam, me...
We will give new meaning to the term 'blitzkrieg' when the world wakes up and finds that the Bible was mistranslated -- the GEEK have inherited the Earth.
Boo-yah!
--Jonah
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Or in Sol's case, the term 'blintzkruller'...
--Jonah
Posted by Mikey T (Member # 144) on :
Well at least we're talking about a fictional fleet of Germany during WWII instead of the fictional Federation fleet during the Dominion War.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Y'know...I was museing about these losers I used to know: The Black Hand. They showed the world that even rank amaturs could cause the world to go to war.
I was considering a possible curent Black Hand band of anarchists and I think it could really work on two conditions: First, they'd have to recruit a Hezbollah member (or someone that could pass for one) and second that person would have to kill off one lynchpin figure on the world stage. Probably Condi Rice at present.
This would draw the U.S. into unavoidable conflict in Lebanon and ultimately spark a war between the US/Israel alliance and Iran/Syria. As U.S. forces are stretchd so thin just now, Britan may itercede on the U.S.'s behalf.
It's not perfect- North Korea would need to get involved to really fuck things up, but it's a start. ALL THIS IS OF COURSE SPECULATION AND IN NO WAY INTENDED TO GET ME ARRESTED BY BUSHCOTM.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Nobody ever mentions me in these lists. I'd like to think it's because I'm held in reserve as a last resort, the doomsday option, but really I suspect it's because no-one likes me.
Ken MacLeod's books set in the mid-21st century feature Germany embarking on a War of European Integration (without ever once mentioning Nazis). They come a cropper when a US-dominated UN nukes occupied Kiev, and Frankfurt and Berlin too.
One thing that's puzzling me about the Battle of Britain, now: in order for Operation Sea-Lion to succeed, the Germans needed air superiority (and didn't get it). But what danger, exactly, did the RAF and Fleet Air Arm actually pose to an invasion fleet? As we've seen, most of their maritime aviation assets were less than stellar; did they even have a respectable torpedo-bomber? I don't see how a few Spitfires, but mainly Hurricanes and Swordfish etc. could ever have been seen as a serious threat.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
It's not that RAF or even the Home Fleet would have been a serious deterrence against the invasion - Hitler's previous maneuvers had all been harebrained gambles that by conventional tactical analysis should never have succeeded, and Seel�we could simply have joined that club.
If Hitler had decided to push forth with Seel�we, and gained a few airstrips on the Albion side early on, odds are that Britain would have folded. After all, France folded even though it had the stronger army, merely because Germany had more audacity. It would have required extremely good luck - favorable weather in the Channel, Churchill getting cold feet about risking the Home Fleet, G�ring choking on a Wienerschnitzel and being replaced by somebody like Galland... But Hitler had been a lucky bastard before, and might continue to be so.
Why Seel�we failed to be attempted is not because what Hitler was facing. It was because what Hitler THOUGHT he was facing. G�ring, out of incompetence, convinced him that the RAF was powerful when it was not (after first having convinced him of the exact opposite, with equally disastrous results). Canaris, out of deliberate high treason and desire to see his F�hrer burn, convinced him that England had twenty-seven divisions ready to throw the attackers back to the sea, when perhaps two could have been mustered at best.
That particular battle was won through propaganda and self-delusion, not by the actual strength of armies or navies or air forces involved. Hitler was never prepared to do anything, he just did it, or didn't, based on "personal risk analysis". This time, he didn't.
(All that aside, the Hurricane would probably have been the worst air threat to the invasion - a steady gun platform on which devastating rockets were already being fitted, in mass production and with a reliable engine. Things like the Beaufighter were also coming, and the strategic bombers could have done their part against the beachhead as well.)
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Yes, Lee, you are the last resort, the one from under the bottom of the barrel. 8)
Timo, how much of this information was based on plywood cutouts, as far as divisional strengths and aircraft numbers?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
If Lee's the last hope, I say we install the Flare Matrix of Sarcasm into his chest and when he shows up to save the day, Shik has to sing that godawful song "The Touch" from the Transformers movie.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
quote:Timo, how much of this information was based on plywood cutouts, as far as divisional strengths and aircraft numbers?
I don't think the British themselves ever hoped to turn two divisions to twenty-seven with such tricks. They were really only attempted in large scale to mask Operation Overlord, three-four years later.
I think German aerial reconnaissance over Britain in 1940-41 was also rather impotent. But that lack of capacity made it possible for the Abwehr to deceive Hitler as much as they did - about 80% of Britain's landmass was beyond the reach of his aerial eyes, and could theoretically hold just about anything. (Perhaps a bit fewer war elephants and a bit more munitions factories than in the paintings delivered by agent Blackadder, but still.)
Basically, Canaris pulled those figures out of his ass, pretending e.g. that the veterans rescued at Dunkerque had been distributed to form the core of the new formations (they weren't, and their expertise would only first see use in the North African campaigns). The first time there would be dozens of divisions to defend Britain would be when the Yanks began arriving in force. And THOSE arrivals were in turn belittled.
The sad thing is, Hitler's brave backstabbers can never receive the public admiration they deserve, because that would strengthen the myth that Hitler wouldn't have been defeated by his own utter incompetence alone.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Well, ANY landing on an opposing shore is going to receive massive casualties. You typically need a 3-1 advantage before embarking on an invasion to provide a high percentage of success.
The problems lie in the logistics: 1. Jerry lacked long range 4-engine bombers that could reach deep into Britain and destroy resupply routes to the beaches. 2. Jerry lacked the ability to provide constant naval support to the landings. They wouldn't risk their BB's for a close support action for fear of losing them in the channel and couldn't provide the required air cover to protect them. 3. Jerry lacked the proper landing craft to move the necessary equipment ashore in a landing. They had no amphib's and only at a real port would they have been able to offload tanks. WIthout that support, German infantry would be hard pressed against even moderate defenses. 4. Jerry didn't have the supply chain to pour the equipment necessary to support a breakout from the initial beachhead. Without supplies and reinforcements an invasion is doomed to die on the beach.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The key to Seel�we would have been the virtually complete lack of opposition. Albion had basically two and a half armored vehicles, available artillery was antiquated and in untrained hands, and "Dad's Army" was guarding most of the coastline, some 50% of which was suitable for beaching by the ersatz landing craft available to the Nazis.
The only thing that Britain didn't lose in France was the RAF, which Churchill ordered to withdraw when defeat was inevitable; and the now unarmed veterans.
But of course Hitler didn't know that, and wouldn't have believed it even had he known. If he hadn't lost his nerve with paratroopers after the Netherlands, those could have thrown defenses into complete disarray, especially by overrunning key airfields and radar installations; and southern England out of necessity was full of fuel that the Germans could have utilized.
Even though virtually unarmed, Britain in 1940 could have thrown the invasion back to the Channel. Or then Britain could have folded in a week, out of sheer shock. That was the main weapon of the German Invasion: surprise and fear. Wait, those were the two main weapons. Surprise, fear and a fanatical devotion to the F�hrer...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: Surprise, fear and a fanatical devotion to the F�hrer...
Three
Hitler was just waiting for his deathstar before taking on Britain, all those super weapons his people were trying to create.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
What is frightening to consider is: What would have happened if Germany had waited 12-18 months to start WW2. I remember seeing a comic entitled "Luftwaffe 1946" or such that had a similar scenario and the Jerrys were flying all this advanced stuff. Granted the U.S. would have still had a viable fleet in the waters by 1942/3, but could even superior numbers overwhelm an advanced AND supplied GermanY?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
You lie!
I considered it and I'm not frightened at all. I want my money back.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
The check is in the mail.... MEDIA MAIL...delivery expected in 3-7 centuries.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
So, the tubes are all blocked with senate memos.
Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
There are certainly MANY things in the war that Germany could have done to improve its situation, but Sealion was NOT one of them.
The Royal Navy was a great threat to any invasion. With a functioning Royal Navy, an invasion couldn't be given reinforcement.
The only useful thing the Germans had to counter the Royal Navy was the Stuka (level bombing is not useful against ships). To use the Stuka, Germany needed major air superiority over the channel, or the Stuka would be ripped to shreds by Spitfires and Hurricanes.
It would have been possible for Germany to do much better in the Battle of Britain, but they couldn't win a decisive victory. Britain actually had superior aircraft production then Germany, which had not converted to a total war economy (and didn't until 1943!). The best Germany could expect would be to push back British bases beyond the range of the Bf109.
British bombers were quite bad and would not have had a significant impact on Sealion, especially since Germany would have air superiority at the beachhead.
Even if the Germans did manage to secure air superiority over the beaches, though, this wouldn't be decisive. The Royal Navy could still attack and suffer some losses. Other Royal Navy units could do night attacks, and retreat to safety by morning.
Finally, the Germans would have really crappy logistics, so keeping an army supplied and sending reinforcements (especially armored units) would be problematic. After landing, it wouldn't be a cakewalk either. The British Army was severely mauled in France, but it still had many divisions and tanks, not counting home guard units, which probably wouldn't have been able to do much (maybe slow down the paratroopers).
Next Topic: If the Germans had somehow conserved their naval units (by not doing much, and certainly not invading Norway) and then made one great sortie (presumably following Bismarck�s historical route to reach French ports), the British could certainly have countered it. For one thing, the King George V class battleships were very good. Their 15 inch guns may have been smaller then the Bismarck�s, but they had 10 compared to the Bismarck�s 8. Still, the Bismarck had faster-firing guns, so overall it had better armermant, but only a little better. For an excellent comparison of many battleships see http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_guns.htm.
By the time the German carriers would have been ready (assuming both were greatly hurried), the British would have the Seafire (naval Spitfire), but the German carriers would not have had the Fw-190 (only the Bf109T was developed for carrier landings). Since there were several British carriers, it is likely that they could have prevented Stuka attacks on their fleet (though they probably couldn�t launch attacks of their own � I don�t think they had good bombers at around this time). Thus, the superior British surface superiority would have prevailed, though would have been bloody.
Next Topic: If the war was delayed for a year, Germany would indeed have been more advanced. Overall, it would have been a bad idea if Germany wanted to win to have delays, but to just focus on the air battle, the Americans and British were developing jets that could match the Me262, though being the Meteor and P-80. With the B-29 replacing the B-17 and B-24, it is unlikely that Germany would have been able to obtain more then a temporary advantage in the air.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
But the only reason the British efforts to develop jets ever proceeded was because Hitler was at the gates. If there had been no war, Frank Whittle wouldn't have gotten half a penny, and the first jets would still have been German.
And the B-29 and B-36 came to be because of the threat to the availability of European airfields, too. There would have been little incentive for the USAAF to do such R&D before the 1940s if not for Hitler.
Hitler could not delay the war because he wanted to maintain his personality cult through constant territorial gains. He thought he was delaying the war by conquering Poland - he truly seems to have been convinced the French and the British would not respond.
But what if he had delayed? There would still be a war brewing. The Japanese had to attack by 1941 or -42, as their natural resources were running out. The attack would challenge the British and French Empires if not USA, and directly affect the European situation. Moreover, rogue Japanese hardliners were at war with the Soviet Union at Manchukuo, drawing Stalin's attention; without this, Stalin would already have been gearing up for a campaign of conquest in Europe, rather than being semi-defensive in 1939 and thus failing to take Finland (which he attempted) or Hungary, Romania and the Balkans (which he postponed).
By delaying, and proceeding with a sensible shipbuilding campaign and constant aeronautics R&D, Hitler would 1) have created a stronger army, 2) undermined his chances of conquering Europe with it, and 3) probably nudged world history to a more favorable overall outcome in terms of political stability but 4) created a less favorable outcome in humanitarian terms, given that the European empires would have persisted worldwide, and the Nazis would have had more time to do their thing (even if only in Germany and Austria).
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Of course, the war might have been curtailed had the U.S. congress not been so isolationist due to both unpopular WWI losses and the Great Depression. Even the obvious gearing up for war might have altered japan's initial attack plans.
But the publicwould not have been for it, making for a lackluster homefront and poor production lines.
Huh. I wonder what would have happened if the world at large knew of Stalin's own mass murders and human experimentation at the end of the war? The U.S. had the only nuclear weapons- and the USSR was in no shape to repulse an alied invasion. (assuming said invasion did not occur in winter, of course).
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Actually, the Dean Koontz book Lightning features at the end an altered timeline where (based on a throwaway line by the time-travelling protagonist) Churchill persuades the USA to carry on the war after the fall of Germany, only this time against Russia. Deprived of military aid, the USSR soon collapses.
I never bought it. For one thing, the Soviet Union had been massively re-armed by the UK and USA, and a lot of those resources remained intact given how poor the German resistance had been in the last two years of the war on the Eastern Front.
Then, there's persuading the British and American peoples, and their allies, to carry on the struggle. Especially bear in mind that immediately after the war Churchill was removed from power by a massive Labour landslide which expedited one of the greatest programs of social(ist) reform in our history, such as the Welfare State, nationalised industries etc., and which subsequent Conservative governments have done their best to overturn. Not really the environment for telling a war-weary people that "Now we've got rid of the fascists, lets get the socialists too!"
And, lastly, it's now known that Churchill would probably never have been able to convince Roosevelt, because the latter conducted all their dealings with an eye to reducing British/Imperial power, especially as it would stand in the eventual post-war settlement. And he wasn't above siding with Stalin to do so, effectively out-voting Churchill.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
The U.S. would have had the same problems with Russia that Germany had only with some spiffy 4-engine bombers to reach further. As far as armor goes, the Soviet T-34's, SU and KV series tanks would've killed ANY armor the U.S. could field. Not even the T-26 (M26) Pershings were much more than adequate and there was less than three dozen of these in Europe at the end of hostilities. U.S. naval power would be negated to a large degree by the geography of Russia itself. The only hope for the U.S. would have been long range bombing and the use of nuclear weapons and a surrender. A conventional campaign would more than likely suffered the same fate that the Germans met.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Of course, the Americans could have already analyzed what went wrong, and invaded Russia through the Baltic. Taking Leningrad should have been almost trivially easy with the overwhelming amphibious and naval air capabilities the Allies had; proceeding to Moscow from there would have collapsed the Soviet transportation network...
But such an expedition would have required at least a year of planning, probably two. This would have made it even more difficult to keep up the support for the plan, and would have outdated it politically before it got launched.
Another choice would have been to invade the Far East with the forces already on the Pacific, making Stalin tear his moustache over the logistics of getting his forces across Siberia. That would have made a subsequent European invasion quite a bit easier. That's what Hitler originally wanted to happen, too - the Japanese simply didn't accommodate him by keeping up the pressure in the East, but signed a nonaggression pact with the USSR instead.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
Timo, the B-29 was in development before the war even started, and was making good progress before France fell.
The Meteor was as well. In fact, the Battle of Britain may even have slightly hindered its development, but the war probably did speed it up overall. However, wouldn�t the war have sped up the German research projects as well?
Fro delaying the war, I don�t think it would be unreasonable to project that Anchluss occurs somewhat later, with a larger gap between it and Czechoslovakia, and that and Poland. This wouldn�t be changing Hitler�s plan, only delaying it. In fact, German planning did not consider Germany to be ready for war until 1942, maybe later (I forget exactly).
The Japanese only attacked because they were running low on oil, and the West was busy with Germany, giving them a major advantage. If the war had been delayed a year, these conditions would still have been met. With a delay of over a year, then all bets are off. They probably would still have attacked at about the historical time with two years delay in the European war, since France and Britain would still be engaged with Germany then (this assumes, of course, that the war follows roughly it historical course).
The Soviet Union may not have conducted aggressive action against Finland and Poland. The Molotov Pact was responsible for giving the USSR its �area of influence�.
Overall, a delay in starting the war in Europe would have been very beneficial to the Allies. The German ship building program was quite bad, only having two carriers, but a lot of battleships. German tank development lagged as well, the T-34 being the inspiration for most German tank developments past their starting force.
Meanwhile, the Allies continue modernization of their army, especially the Soviet Union (though France and Great Britain were building up as well � this is often cited as a reason that they agreed at Munich). Germany would have been hard-pressed to invade a Soviet Union with thousands of T-34s at the beginning, with a force only marginally better then they had historically (more MkIIIs, fewer MkIIs). Time would also reduce the effect of the Soviet purges.
Overall, the German military was good, and they certainly would have done well, but not as well as historically. This means that they would be defeated conventionally in a shorter amount of time then the actual war. However, even a one-year extension of the war meant that Germany could be nuked (the Manhatten project was helped along by the war, but was started before, so it is guesswork to determine if the weapons would be ready), perhaps simultaneously with Japan, perhaps not (Germany was the main enemy, and the original target of the Manhattan project during the war). Finally, the Holocaust would have been a bit worse in Germany, but somewhat less bad in other areas (the main areas it took place) due to the shorter length of the war.
To Jason: Unlike WWI, the U.S. DID begin rearmament once the war began. It was quite obvious, and even included a peacetime draft.
On the matter of a WWIII, it is a very big topic. Long story short, the USSR would definitely have been the ones on the strategic offensive due to their superior army. They probably would have conquered a good swath of Germany, reaching the Rhine before they could be halted due to a variety of factor (airpower, logistics, Allied reinforcements, etc). However, atomic weapons, as usual, would spell the end of the war, and probably the Soviet Union as a political entity.
Finally, the T-34 is a highly overrated tank. Yes, it was extremely innovative and effective, but by the end of the war it was only average. Half the U.S. tanks with the 76.2mm guns could kill it, and the other half (75mm guns) could deal with it from the flank or at very close range. Meanwhile, some of the T-34s might have been leftover 76.2mm-armed models, which would be inadequate against the Sherman. All Western Allied tank destroyers would have had no trouble with the T-34. The trouble would have been with the IS-2s, but these were not produced in huge numbers.
Awhile ago, I made a thread in another forum comparing contemporary models of the Sherman, T-34, and the German MkIV (the main German tank from ~1942 until it started sharing that distinction with the Panther in 1944). It can be found at: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=91884 Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)